Payton v. Payton
| Decision Date | 23 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20619,20619 |
| Citation | 241 S.E.2d 901,270 S.C. 275 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Evelyn T. PAYTON, Appellant, v. Daisy W. PAYTON and Gloria Payton Campbell, Respondents. In re ESTATE of George A. PAYTON, Jr. |
Anthony B. O'Neill, Charleston, and Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Morris D. Rosen, Charleston, for respondent Daisy W. Payton, et al.
I. M. Goldberg, Charleston, for respondent Eleanor F. Payton, et al.
In the administration of the estate of George A. Payton, Jr., who died intestate in Charleston County on March 18, 1975, the Probate Court was called upon to determine the heirs-at-law. The real issue concerned the respective claims of appellant Evelyn T. Payton and respondent Elizabeth C. Payton that each was the lawful wife of the intestate. The finding of the Judge of Probate, that respondent Elizabeth C. Payton was the lawful wife and that there were four (4) children of that marriage, but respondent was barred of any right to inherit from the deceased because of her adulterous conduct, was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court. There was no appeal from the finding that respondent was barred of the right to inherit; and the sole issue now presented is whether the probate judge was in error in concluding that respondent was the lawful wife of the intestate. If she was, then the children would be legitimate and the sole heirs. We affirm.
The rather complicated marital life of the deceased is summarized in the Statement of the case:
George A. Payton, Jr., . . . , married one Elizabeth Cowart, in Harrison County, Alabama, on February 12, 1951. There were four (4) children born of this marriage. In April 1957 and again in July 1962, George A. Payton commenced divorce actions against Elizabeth C. Payton, which actions were never completed. In 1963, Elizabeth C. Payton, a Florida resident, commenced a divorce action against George A. Payton, Jr., in Bay County Florida, which action resulted in a divorce decree dated November 13, 1963. Respondents contend, and the trial court so held, that this decree was void because George A. Payton, Jr., had no notice of the action or resulting decree. Appellant contends that the decree was valid and binding on the courts of this State.
On August 10, 1972, George A. Payton, Jr., obtained a decree of annulment from Evelyn T. Payton whom he had first married on April 26, 1958, the ground being that he was married (to Elizabeth C. Payton) at the time of the marriage to her. In November 1972, George A. Payton, Jr., filed a divorce action against Elizabeth C. Payton in the Family Court for Charleston County and obtained a decree of divorce. There was no evidence that Elizabeth C. Payton was ever served with process or had any knowledge of the proceeding.
In April 1973, George A. Payton, Jr., again married Evelyn T. Payton (the appellant in this action).
The Statement agrees that the primary issue to be passed upon, in determining the marital status of the deceased, is "whether or not the alleged divorce decree obtained in Florida by Elizabeth C. Payton (respondent) in 1963 was and is a valid and enforceable decree." Of course, in our consideration of this appeal, we are bound by the settled principle that "the findings of fact by a probate court should not be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous." Ex parte Blizzard, 185 S.C. 131, 193 S.E. 633.
The finding of the Probate Court that the Florida Court was without jurisdiction to render the divorce decree in 1963 is sustained by the record and cannot be held to be clearly or manifestly erroneous. While it is inferable from the decree that the deceased appeared in the action, respondent testified that the deceased had no notice of the proceeding. In addition, the record shows that the deceased, subsequent to the Florida decree, sought an annulment from appellant, Evelyn T. Payton, on the ground that he was married to respondent and later...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Brown
...has no authority to overrule findings of fact made by the probate court unless found to be "manifestly erroneous." Payton v. Payton, 270 S.C. 275, 241 S.E.2d 901 (1978) citing Ex parte Blizzard, 185 S.C. 131, 193 S.E. 633 (1937). Because Lundh did not request a jury trial in her appeal to t......
-
Estate of Stanley v. Sandiford
...of fact by a probate judge will not be set aside on appeal unless they are clearly or manifestly erroneous. Payton v. Payton, 270 S.C. 275, 278, 241 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1978); Estate of O'Neill v. Tuomey Hospital, 254 S.C. 578, 584, 176 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1970); Ex Parte Blizzard, 185 S.C. 131, ......
-
Martin v. Skinner
...ruled she was not entitled to a trial de novo because she made no prior request for a de novo proceeding. Relying on Payton v. Payton, 270 S.C. 275, 241 S.E.2d 901 (1978), the circuit judge decided the case on the record made in the probate court without taking any The heirs argue that by f......
-
Weathers v. Bolt, 1025
...should not disturb the probate judge's findings of fact unless they are manifestly or clearly erroneous. Payton v. Payton, 270 S.C. 275, 278, 241 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1978) cert. den. 439 U.S. 847, 99 S.Ct. 145, 58 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978); Estate of O'Neill v. Tuomey Hospital, 254 S.C. 578, 584, 176......